Resolution 1996-37
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING GPA 95-04 AMENDING CERTAIN
NOISE POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy has initiated application
GPA 95-04 amending the General Plan to modify the maximum
permissible outdoor and indoor noise levels for residential
properties and to designate a fixed location for noise-level
measurement; and
WHEREAS,
pursuant
to
the California Environmental
Quality Act
(CEQA),
State CEQA Guideline 15305 provides a
categorical exemption for minor alterations in land use limitations
which applies to this project; and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission held duly noticed
public hearings on GPA 95-04 on September 7, 1995 and October 5,
1995 and thereafter voted to recommend denial of the proposed
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held duly noticed public
hearings on GPA 95-04 on October 16, 1995, on November 20, 1995, on
December 18, 1995, on February 5, 1996, and on May 20, 1996, as
well as a study session on March 19, 1996, and considered the staff
reports, all written and oral testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following
General Plan amendments are approved and adopted pursuant to the
Staff Report dated May 15, 1996 attached hereto because the City
Council finds that to do so is in the public interest:
1. The maximum permissible outdoor noise level for residential
properties is increased from 58 to 60 decibels, and Table I from
Chapter III at page 7 of the Gilroy General Plan is hereby ordered
revised to so reflect.
2. The maximum permissible indoor noise level for residential
properties is decreased from 48 to 45 decibels, and Table II from
\LAC\3C0099.01
61~8047C6002
-1-
RESOLUTION 96-37
.
.
Chapter III at page & of the Gilroy General Plan is hereby ordered
to be revised to so state,
3. The existing footnote entitled ~Note" on page 7 of Chapter
III of the Gilroy General Plan becomes footnote 2, and the
following paragraph is added to that page as footnote 1:
"The outdoor sound levels for residential properties
shall be measured from a location which is no less than:
. 15 feet outside the rear-most proposed household wall;
. 20 feet outside the front-most proposed household wall;
. 6 feet outside the side-most proposed household walls;
and
. 10 feet outside the side-most proposed household wall
when adjacent to a street."
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June, 1996 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ROGERS, SPRINGER, VALDEZ, GAGE
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY, MORALES
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ROWLI SON
ATTEST:
~'-e E
\lAC\309099.01
61~2804706002
-2-
RESOLUTION 96-37
.
. .
'Community Development Department
Planning Division
Staff Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
FILE:
PLANNER:
Jay Baksa
William Faus
GPA 95-04
Bryan Stice
May 15, 1996
On May 20, 1996, the City CouociI will resume di"""l';oo on proposed changes to noise regulations within the General
Plantext Tbespecificproposedchanges arediscnssed in detail within the revised staff report dated November 15, 1995
(attached)" Following, is a chronology of the public hearings and events which have led up to this point.
Public Meeting Events
Date
First Planning Commission meeting September 7, 1995
. Requested supplemental infonnation
Second Planning Commission meeting October 5, 1995
. Recommended denial (4-2-1 vote)
First City Council meeting October 16, 1995
. Requested Planning Commissioo representation
. Requested additional information
Second City Council meeting November 20,1995
. Requested a noise expert
Third City Council meeting December 18, 1995
. Directed staff to research the possibility of a noise demonstration
Fourth City Council meeting Febrwny 5, 1996
. Selected noise consultant for demonstrations "
. City Council study session March 19, 1996
. Noise demonstration by David Dubbink Asonci~t"$
Since the ronclusioo of the noise demonstration by David Dubbink Asonci~tes. staff bas received correspondence from
David Dubbink and Tim Filice (Glen Lorna Group). These items are ~H~rJ.ed and labeled as "Attachment I" and
"Attachment 2."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In light of the additiooaI n:searcl1 conducted by staff and the noise demonstration conducted bya professional consultant,
Staff maintains a recnmm.....dation of AFPROV AL for the proposed amendments contained within the attached staff
report (GPA 95.04).
V' A-I.
~~
Planner ill
. .'
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Staff Report Revised
November 15, 1995
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
GPA 95-04
City of Gilroy
Citywide
BI)'llIl D. Stice
REOUESTED ACTION:
A General Plan Amendment approval to modify the maximum permissible outdoor and indoor noise
levels for residential properties, and to designate a required location for noise-level measurement.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
All residential properties throughout the City, though this request would generally apply to undeveloped
properties
CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLAN:
General Plan text amendment request proposals, by definition, do not conform to the current General
Plan text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides a categorical exemption which applies to
this request: Class 5, Section 15305; entitled "Minor alterations in Land Use Limitations."
ANALYSIS OF REOUEST:
Each proposed General Plan Amendment is shown with its accompanying analysis.
Proposed new wordings are indicated by: "bold" type face
Languaie to be deleted is indicated by: "~hjlcuul' type face
GP ~ 95-04 (ReVise'"
2
er'
. 1'1115195
rROtQSE;D AME:NJ)lVlErIT fit:
m. Natural Environment - Policies - Noise
Request:
Increase the maximum permisstble outdoor noise level for residential properties from
58 to 60 decibels. (See Attached Table 1 from Chapter m, page 7, Gilroy General
Plan.)
Note: Sound intensity is expressed in decibels (dBs} "An weighted decibels (dBAs)
are most often used to gauge the severity of human exposure to noise because this
scheme most accurately paral1els the human ears response to a sound's frequency
components.
Analysis
Staff has recognized a need to adjust the maximum permissible outdoor noise level for residential
properties, as set forth under the City's General Plan Noise Element, for four reasons:
L The City Council and Planning Commission have previously requested that staff review
alternatives to using sound walls to regulate the installation of sound attenuation devices"
As a result, a sound wall study was produced in September 1994, with several findings and
the following preliminary recommendation:
C That the City'$ General Plan be amended to comply with the
requiremenu of the Uniform Building Code.
2. Stalffeels that the current General Plan maximum permissible noise level of 58 decibels is
overly restrictive, since compliance with outdoor noise limits is solely dependant on sound
attenuation devices. The only methods to achieve compliance with outdoor noise level
standards are to:
. Construct sound walls
. Create buffer zones
. Develop frontage roads
These mitigation measures often lead to negative aesthetic impacts. Mitigation measures
such as tall sound walls, excessive buffer zones, and costly frontage roads are likely
requirements for meeting the City's current outdoor noise limits"
3" When compared to other local agencies in the Bay Area, Gilroy's maximum permissible
outdoor noise level is generally more restrictive. A recent industry study, conducted by a
sound specialist, shows that of 10 Bay Area agencies with specific thresholds for maximum
permissible outdoor noise levels, only Gilroy has a maximum less than 60 decibels" All
other agencies in the study, which had a listed maximum threshold, shared a maximum
threshold of 60 decibels"
OP ;'95-04 (Revis'
3
-..
'11/15/95
4. Section 3501 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), establishes the maximum outdoor noise
level for residential properties at 60 decibels. Each agency listed in the industry study shows
consistency with the Uniform Building Code, except the City ofGiiroy. Approval of this
proposed amendment will bring the City's General Plan policy in line with that of the UBC.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT #2:
ill. Natural Environment - Policies - Noise
Request:
Decrease the maximum pennissible indoor noise levels from 48 to 45 decibels (See
Attached Table 2 from Chapter m, page 7, Gilroy General Plan).
Analysis
Staff has recognized a need to adjust the maximum permissible indoor noise level for residential
properties in order to achieve consistency between the City's General Plan policy and the Uniform
Building Code standards. The City's current maximum pennissible level for residential properties
is 48 decibels. Approval of this proposed amendment will bring the City's General Plan policy in
line with the UBC's standard at 45 decibels.
Developers are already subject to the Uniform Building Code's 45-decibel maximum indoor
permissible level for residential properties. By adjusting the Gilroy General Plan maximum indoor
pennissible level to 45-decibels, the City will achieve consistency with the UBC's standard.
Furthennore, approval of proposed amendment #2 will not have any environmental, aesthetic, or
economic impacts on development.
r.R~QSJtD ~~NI tl3:
ill. Natural Environment - Policies - Noise
Request:
Determination of a required location of noise measurement for residential properties
(See Attached Tables 1 & 2 footnote #1, Chapter ill page 7, Gilroy General Plan).
Analysis
Staff has recognized a need to establish a required location of noise measurement for residential
properties. Currently, noise levels are measured from a property line rather than from a location
near a proposed house, which is typically the location where high noise levels would be a problem.
The practice of measuring noise levels at the property line is somewhat impractical because it
eliminates the option of situating a unit away from the noise source as a fonn of noise mitigation.
Currently, if noise levels measured at a residential property line exceed the maximum pennissible
outdoor level, a sound attenuation device such as a sound wall or benn must be constructed.
GP~95-04 (ReVise.
4
.
il'I15195
This proposed amendment would enable developers to create larger lot sizes to be used as a form
of noise mitigation. If noise levels could be measured at a location inside the property line, near a
proposed residential unit, the larger lot sizes wou1d enable units to be situated where noise does not
exceed the maximum permissible level.
Approval of this proposed amendment will allow for simplified noise-level compliance and provide
minimum yard areas where noise is below the maximum permissible level.
At the Planning Commission Meetins: ofSq)tember 7 1995 several concerns and QJIestions were expressed
by the Commission res:arding proposed General Plan Amendment 95-04 Due to the technical nature of
information contained in the original proposed GP A the Plannins: Commission reQJIested that additional
analysis be provided. Followins: is S4Wlemental information which will review key concepts and Questions
surrounding the proposed changes
TERMINOU)GY:
Sound intensity, the physical correlate of what is generally experienced as "loudness," is expressed in
decibels (dBs). "A" weighted decibels (dB As) are most often used to gauge the severity of human
exposure to noise because this scheme most accurately parallels the human ears response to a sound's
frequency components. The following indicators are used widely:
. Loq - The average acoustic energy content of noise during the time it lasts. Thus, the Loq of a
time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic
energy to the ear during exposure, no matter what time of the day or night they occur.
. L... - The day-night average of noise level, is a 24 average Loq with a 10 dBA "penalty" added to
noise during the hours of 10:00 p.rn. to 7:00 am. to account for the greater nocturnal noise
sensitivity of people.
(Note: this scale is used within the City's General Plan and the Uniform Building Code)
OUESTIONS
Q. Where did the original General Plan outdoor requirement of 58 dBA come from?
A Staffbas not been able to determine exactly where the current 58-decibel requirement came from
Since its adoption in 1979, the General Plan has had a maximum permissible outdoor noise limit of
58 decibels. In researching the original General Plan documents, staff believes that the 58-decibel
requirement was referenced from the guidelines set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A).
GP~ 95-04 (Rev'-
.-
.1lI15195
5
Q. What magnitude of sound intensity is created from the proposed increase from 58 to 60 dBA!
A fm1l: An increase of2 dBA is simply an increase in the 24-hour average of aggregate noise levels.
Increasing the City's General Plan dBA threshold will therefore allow for increases in peak noise
levels which contribute to the 24-hour average.
~: According to the Santa Clara County Genera1 Plan - Noise Element, "a change of3 decibels
is nonnal1y the smallest change that a person will notice." Research on human sensitivity to noise
has shown that a 3 decibel increase in a sound levd is "barely noticeable" while a 10 decibel increase
would be perceived as twice as loud, according to a report prepared by Parsons Engineering
Science, Inc., in July 1995. Furthermore, an increase of one decibel can only be detected by the
human ear in laboratory conditions. Increasing the maximum permissible outdoor noise level by 2
decibels is less than the increase which is "barely noticeable" to the human ear.
Q. What common sounds have a noise level of 60 dBA?
A Some examples in the range of 60 dBA are provided below (also, see the attached table):
Air conditioning unit .. 60 - 73 dBA
Dishwasher at 10 feet .. 60 - 65 dBA
Automobile at 50 feet .. 60 - 90 dBA
Normal conversation .. 55 - 65 dBA
Business offices .. 55 - 65 dBA
Q. Why has staff recommend 60 dBA as a General Plan bench mark?
A Staff's recommendation is based upon the following reasons:
1. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) threshold of 60 dBA is the commonly-used standard for
most jurisdictions. The UBC requires that residential structures which are proposed to be
located where the L... exceeds 60 decibels must have an acoustical analysis showing that the
proposed design will limit exterior nose to the prescribed allowable interior level.
2. An outdoor level of60 dBA is considered "Nonnally Acceptable" for low density residential
areas according to the California State Office of Planning and Research.
3. An increase from 58 to 60 dBA will, in certain cases, reduce the scale or necessity of sound
attenuation devices.
4. An increase from 58 to 60 dBA is relatively unnoticeable to the human ear.
Q. What point of measurement does the UBe use for outdoor noise measurement?
A The UBC does not specify an actual required location of measurement. The UBC only states that
measurement procedures of outdoor noise levels shall generally follow the guidelines set forth by
the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM). Furthennore, the ASTM does not specify a
required location of measurement but rather provides guidelines for selecting measurement
locations. (The Building Division has generally followed the Planning Division's interpretation of
the General Plan which has been that sound measurements be conducted at a property line.)
.
GP;'95-04 (Revis'
6
.-
11/15/95
Q. What are unacceptable noise levels?
A The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) classifies 70 to 75 dBA as "Normal1y
Unacceptable" noise levels for residential environments. Noise levels which exceed 75 dBA in
residential environments are classified by the OPR as .Clearly Unacceptable."
The U.S, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) outlines acceptable amounts of
exposure to various noise levels in the following chart:
Sound Level, dBA
Duration Per Day, Boun
90
92
95
97
100
"102
105
110
115
8
6
4
3
2
1~
1
~
Yo
Q. What were the 9 other agencies having higher general plan permissible outdoor sound levels
referenced in the original staff report?
A2ency
dBA
Contra Costa County
Marin County
Sonoma County
Orinda
San Jose
Santa Rosa
Sunnyvale
Vacaville
Walnut Creek
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Note: The neighboring rural communities of Hollister,
Morgan Hil~ and Watsonville each have a standard
maximum noise level for outdoor areas of 60 dBA
, GP~ 95-04 (Revis!!
7
w'-
1'1115/95
At their meetini on October 7 1995 the Plannini Commission recommended denial of GP A 95-04 by
a vote of 4-2-1 due to t'.oncemq ofinr.rP.ll<:M noise impacts In addition the Plannini Commission did not
find the reasoning of the proposed changes colllJ)ellini enouu:h to warrant 8I1Y of the prQposed chan~
to the General Plan
AYES: Commissioners Arellano, Collier, Lai, Puente
NAYES: Commissioners Blankley, Suyeyasu
ABSENT: Commissioner Pinheiro
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends l\llproval of the proposed amendments for the following reasons:
1. The proposed text changes will update the General Plan Noise Element.
2. The proposed text changes are consistent with City Council and Planning Commission directives
and with preliminary sound wall study recommendations.
3. The proposed text changes will increase the options available for noise-level compliance.
4. The proposed text changes will help reduce negative aesthetic impacts and mitigation costs of
residential development.
5. The proposed text changes bring the Gilroy General Plan in line with Uniform Building Code
standards.
6. There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of the proposed text changes.
Respectfully,
.M~.,()~ ~
William Faus
Plannerm
Residential
Commercial
ot8 45
61
e"
Table 1
.-
PERMISSIBLE MAXIMUM OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS
City of Gilroy, California
Land Use Category
LoN (dBA)
Residential
Commercial
53601
65
Table 2
PERMISSIBLE MAXIMUM INDOOR NOISE LEVELS
City of Gilroy, California
Land Use Category 1
Lot. (dBA)
1 The outdoor sound levels for residential properties shaD be measured from a
location which is no less than:
. 15 feet outside the rear-most proposed household waD;
. 20 feet outside the front-most proposed household wall;
. 6 feet outside the side-most proposed household walls; and
. 10 feet outside the side-most proposed household waD when adjacent to a
street.
~ 1 The indoor standards for industrial land uses have been set by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration. The maximum level to be exceeded no more than 10% of
the time (LID) is 65 dBA while the maximum level to be exceeded no more than 50% of
the time (L",) is 60 dBA
ill-?
jjl~~l~jf-l 5 o-~l~jllli
.~~~~~ 145l1~illill
~1~~~ 140 llli~l~ Son i c Boom
l1m~F 1 35l~lml~:
~~mr 13oil1111~1
\11~1~125":~~illj Jet Takeoff at 200 I
11imr 120~lmm
~~jl~ 11 5 ~l~llli
1m~ 11 o~mll~
1imr 1 05 -1f:m"
il~lli~;~:111111 Newspaper pres:~ ~~~ flyover at 1,000'
:~~l~j -90-~m1
~11jj -85-~1~m
~~1~ - 80-m~1
:~j~ -7 5 -ll~jl
m~ -70-j1~jl
m~, -65-~j~~i
~l~j -60-ml
j1~-55-~jl1 Norma 1 Conversation
:j~ - 5 0 -jjl~
1~-45-jlj:
j~~ -40-jjj
~~-35-:~j Library
~ - 30-:j~
:: 25 ;:;
li~20~1!1 Motion Picture Studio
1:-15-1
'!-10-!
; -5-,
: -0-'
.
EXTREMELY LOUO
VERY LOUO
LOUD
QUIET
THRESHOLD OF HEARING
.
NOISE SCALE
Oxygen Torch
Discotheque
Motorcycle at
Power Mower
15'
Freight Train
Food Blender
Electric Mixer, Alarm Clock
Washing Machine; Garbage Disposal
Freeway Traffic at 50'
Average Traffic at 100'; Vacuum Cleaner
Electric Typewriter at 10'
Dishwasher at 10'; Air Conditioning Unit
Large Transformers
Light Traffic at 100';
BI rd Calls
Refrl gerator
Leaves Rustling
Source: Olson Laboratories, Inc.
Anaheim, California
Gilroy Planning Div.
David Dubbink sociates
1147 Ninth Street. Los 0505, lifornla. 93402 USA
(805) 528-4161 - FAX (805) 528-3220
March 20, 1996
Bryan D, Stice, Planner I
Planning Division
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 1996
Dear Bryan:
The city council and planning commission members did an excellent job of using our
Interactive Sound Information System the way it was intended to be used. Whatever comes
of this, I think you can feel satisfied you did everything possible to give them complete and
accurate information about the decision they are making, As professional planners that part
of it is our job and the city staff (and you) have given them the very best information you
could deliver, It is now their assignment to take this material, interpret the community's
interests and make the decision, Give me a call when they decide what they are going to do
with this,
An invoice is enclosed, It conforms to our January 5 cost estimate, I overspent on my time
and included 1.5 additional hours, The only direct project expenses were the PVC pipe and
a small collection of convenience store snack items to fuel Highway 101 travel. I applied the .
additional time to the unspent expenses, keeping the total exactly within the initial project
estimate,
Rate or Hours or Totals
Personnel Amount Units
Dr. David Dubbink $85.00 11.5 $977.00
Technical S ialist 55,00 4 220.00
Travel $0.30 320 $96.00
Other Direct E nses 13.00 13,00
Totals ct1 306 01\
"t'.L, .Vv
I enjoyed working with you and the city officials on this, Your help in putting the program
together was invaluable. Cher and I enjoyed having the time to talk with you on Saturday,
Give us a call if you should ever be near San Luis Obispo when classes are in session at Cal
Poly, I'm sure my students would enjoy hearing what life is like in the "real world",
~
David T. Dubbink, Ph,D, AICP
.
RECEIV~
MAR 2 8 1996
Gilroy Planning Div.
MEMO
DATE:
March 27, 1996
TO:
Mayor Don Gage
City Council, City of Gilroy
GLEN.LCMA GRCUI
A diversified reel est;ate develo~E
FROM:
Timothy J. Filice, Glen Lorna Group
RE:
Sound Attenuation Demonstration
I much appreciated the opportunity to be present for the sound demonstrations on
Tuesday, March 19, 1996, I am taking the liberty of summarizing my reaction to the
demonstrations to give you a perspective from the development community.
1. Although I had to leave before the presentation was completed,
I must admit that the demonstration fell short of my expectations
wi th respect to the actual difference between the 58 DB and 60 DB
sound levels, The demonstration seemed to center on the difference
between 70 and 73 DB's and, while the difference in sound was
noticeable at that level, I'm not sure the presentation gave an adequate
indication of the significance of the difference at the lower level.
2. By far, the most significant comment was that of the consultant
himself, who urged that the council favorably consider the changes
proposed by the Planning Department because of the relatively
insignificant I1ature of the difference in sound levels,
., I. - '-as '-e~- _.~.-.. l' ~ .... - -a-. .h~ -~.-- J . ----.- to be end"--" '-;0"
>,..10. r"03.Ll v ,.;;~l,:)",,"CU .ui..a.LC'}I :JL,...i.-.;::;.,""'uu.u...cvt:.l;:) \..U.cuU)
individual neighborhoods are a quality-of-life issue, but it is important
to realize that quality-of-life also includes the visual impacts of sound
walls on the community as a whole.
4. It is important to keep in mind that as individuals may differ
in their sensitivity to sound levels, those individuals may exercise
their right to choose between subdivision homes which are near
sound sources and other units which are more distant. IT you
assume that no sound walls will be built retroactively (that is, after
construction is complete and homes are occupied) then it is safe to
assume that no resident will be forced to endure unacceptable levels of
sound, whatever the individual's sound tolerance may be.
7888 WFlEN AVENUE
SUITE 0 143
GILROY, CALIFORNIA S502~
(40S) 847-422":::'
FAX: (408] 847.3:380
.
.
5. Finally, I strongly recommend that you make your fInal decision
in the context of economic impacts of the alternatives. I'm informed
that staff is working with South County Housing to provide for you a
schedule which shows the relative differences in sound wall
construction costs resulting from the two alternatives before you,
Please keep in mind as well that the fInancial impacts will be
significant for all residents, regardless of income level.
In summary, I again urge the Council to favorably consider the changes as proposed
by the Planning Department; I believe that the increase in the allowable sound level
at the exterior of the residence will result in a less obtrusive and much less costly
sound wall solution throughout the community; also, a decrease in the allowable
sound levels in the interior of the premises is something that, I believe, will be
favorably received by the building community, particularly in light of similar
standards in other communities in the Bay Area as well as requirements set forth in
the Uniform Building Code.
U you have any questions or desire any additional input from me, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
ve.r. y trulh~'
G\J,.~~
Timothy J. Filice
TJF:cm
cc:Brian Stice; ]?lanning DepartmenU
.
.
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, city Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 96-37
is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the
3rd
day of
June
19--2L,
at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
Official Seal of the city of Gilroy this
19
4th
day of
June
(Seal)